« Who Is Sonia Sotomayor? | Main | Those With Health Insurance Pay $1017 a Year Extra »

Racist Right Wing Figureheads Lead the Parade Against Sotomayor

Crooks and Liars has an excellent roundup that exposes the conservative right wing racism at work behind the attacks on SCOTUS nominee Sonia Sotomayor. Here's some snippets, and they also have a video (follow the link) highlighting statements made in the last few days by GOP figureheads Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Ann Coulter, etc...

Republicans seem to have picked a meme for fighting the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court: She's a racist!

It's on all the wingnut tongues. We had Tom Tancredo spewing this line on The Ed Show yesterday -- yeah, the same Tom Tancredo who once sang "Dixie" with the members of a white supremacist organization, and whose entire presidential candidacy was built on bashing Latinos.

You could kinda see where this was going then.

Sure enough, the rest of the Right's leading Racial Sensitivity icons -- Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Ann Coulter and Pat Buchanan -- all were singing the same chorus: "She's a raaaaaacist!"

Limbaugh: The infamous Donovan McNabb incident is only the tip of his lengthy race-baiting record.

Beck: The guy who likes to link Latinos to crime and hyperventilates about Mexican crime regularly.

Coulter: The woman whose new book soft-pedals the existence and activities of white supremacists.

Buchanan: The man whose recent books have been rehashings of old white-supremacist eugenics from the early 20th century, fretting about white privilege being overturned by an evil brown tide.

These are the GOP figureheads who have reached their elevated status as a result of the support of the GOP base.

These statements ARE the GOP platform, and the Republicans in Congress FOLLOW the lead of the these figureheads since they speak for and are empowered by the Republican base.

UPDATE: The GOP racists have a long row to hoe if they intend to stop Sotomayor:

Initial public reaction to the nomination of federal Judge Sonia Sotomayor of New York for the U.S. Supreme Court runs more positive than negative, according to the Gallup Poll's first measure of President Obama's nominee.

Nearly half of all Americans surveyed this week rated the nomination as "excellent'' or "good'' - 47% - and another 20% rated the choice as "fair.'' Only 13% of those surveyed judged the nomination as "poor.''

The survey was conducted Tuesday, the day the president announced his choice of Sotomayor, a member of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, to replace retiring Justice David Souter.

The interesting thing is that there is no way that Sotomayor will not be confirmed, and all the GOP is going to accomplish with the attack on Sotomayor is a further decline in their ranks.

But the moderates and level-headed thinkers that still remain are powerless to stop the racists and bigots who have taken over the GOP. Coulter, Limbaugh et.al are selling more books and racking in millions by keeping the GOP base riled up and lathered. These figureheads own the Republican party, and efforts by folks like Colin Powell to pry the party away from these racist assholes has so far been futile.


Note: Wizbang Blue is now closed and our authors have moved on. Paul Hooson can now be found at Wizbang Pop!. Please come see him there!

  • Currently 1.8/5
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Rating: 1.8/5 (10 votes cast)


Comments (34)

Rich Fader:

Well? She is racist. And sexist as well. When you say that somebody of your race and sex ought to be inherently a better judge because of your race and sex, no matter what race and sex you are...you're racist and sexist. Draping KKK hoods and robes on conservatives isn't going to make that go away.

Mycroft:

And from what has been brought to light about her time on the bench in the appeals court, she is a bad jurist to boot. She rules on emotions, rather then law, which is exactly what is not supposed to be done at the US Supreme Court.

We should also keep in mind that Senate Democrats, led by Ted Kennedy, deliberately sought to block the nomination of Miguel Estrada by the Bush Administration because -- in their own words -- "he is Latino." They couldn't bear the thought of a conservative Latino serving on a Federal appellate court, especially if that nomination was a stepping stone to the Supreme Court.

So when you hear liberals bleating about how wonderful it will be to have a Latino Supreme Court justice, just think "bullshit." With elitist white liberals, it's always about politics, and politically-correct token minorities in the right places, and never about racial advancement or atonement for racial injustice.

Lee Ward:

Nice to see our trolls out early, along with the racist figurehead- wannabees.

"Draping KKK hoods and robes on conservatives isn't going to make that go away."

If the hood fits, wear it. It sure fits here.

"She rules on emotions, rather then law, which is exactly what is not supposed to be done at the US Supreme Court."

Evidence to support your opinion that she's a bad jurist will go along ways to dispel the perception that you're just another loud mouth, racist, Mycroft -- but perhaps there's a good reason you left the evidence out -- you don't have any.

"We should also keep in mind that Senate Democrats, led by Ted Kennedy, deliberately sought to block the nomination of Miguel Estrada by the Bush Administration because -- in their own words -- "he is Latino.""

Likewise -- a link here would have been nice so we could fact-check you and - if indeed Kennedy said that -- put it into context. The reason why you left out the link says it all, Laprarie -- but then being a novice blogger you don't know how to link, do you...? lol


Eric:

Perhaps Michael was referring to these memos from the Democrat's Judiciary Committee Staff.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110004305

November 7, 2001/To: Senator Durbin
"The groups singled out three--Jeffrey Sutton (6th Circuit); Priscilla Owen (5th Circuit); and Caroline [sic] Kuhl (9th Circuit)--as a potential nominee for a contentious hearing early next year, with a [sic] eye to voting him or her down in Committee. They also identified Miguel Estrada (D.C. Circuit) as especially dangerous, because he has a minimal paper trail, he is Latino, and the White House seems to be grooming him for a Supreme Court appointment. They want to hold Estrada off as long as possible."


Lee Ward:

No wonder Michael Laprarie (Wizbang)left out context and a link - the facts prove that Estrada was not singled out and denied because he was a Hispanic - but the liars on the right don't have any real ammunition against Sotomayor - her qualifications and credentials are impeccable - so they are trying to deny Sotomayor's confirmation on the basis of...

uh - wait a minute - the issue raised by Laprarie has nothing whatsoever to do with Sotomayor's confirmation or denial of the same.

It's just more right wing noise --- "No, no, no!" - lol

Context is your friend:

Liberals reject allegations that Estrada was treated differently because of his ethnic background. "Conservatives who are minorities and do not have far-right judicial or legal philosophies are being confirmed," says Mincberg.

"This is a ludicrous charge," says Aron. "Miguel Estrada would have been opposed even if he weren't Hispanic, and he would have met a similar fate. The Senate has confirmed a lot of nominees who are people of color, and the White House knows it."

The Senate has confirmed 12 Hispanic judges nominated by President Bush. Two of those -- Edward Prado for the 5th Circuit and Consuelo Callahan for the 9th Circuit -- were for appeals courts, and another appeals nominee, Carlos Bea for the 9th Circuit, had a hearing last week and is expected to be confirmed soon.

Callahan and Bea served as state judges and are considered moderate conservatives. Prado, a former federal trial judge, is seen as a conservative judge.

Eleven African-American Bush appointees have been confirmed. Four were for appeals courts: Barrington Parker Jr. of the 2nd Circuit, Roger Gregory and Allyson Duncan of the 4th Circuit, and Lavenski Smith of the 8th Circuit. Parker and Gregory had previously been nominated for the bench by President Bill Clinton.

Right wing mouthpieces are now using Estrada's race as a weapon - who's surprised by that? These racists cannot hide their biases.

Eric:

Pot and Kettle meet Lee Ward.

J.R.:

lee is a caricature. his opinions are made up to stir the pot. either that or he is near insanity. no one can be this intellectually dishonest. it is beyond belief. if this is his true character one can only imagine the extent to which people avoid interacting with him.

Allen:

Taken in context, the speech was about how the context in which we were raised affects how judges see the world, and that it's unrealistic to pretend otherwise. Yet -- and this is a key point -- she admits that as a jurist, one is obligated to strive for neutrality. It seems to me that Judge Sotomayor in this speech dwelled on the inescapability of social context in shaping the character of a jurist. That doesn't seem to me to be a controversial point. I suspect any intellectually honest and serious observer would read the same speech and reach the same conclusion. The "controversy" over the remark is little more than a foolish exercise, launched by partisans who couldn't be bothered to read the whole thing.

Alito's remarks were, oddly enough, considered a selling point. He's not a cold-hearted conservative, we were told, because Alito is willing to look beyond the letter of the law and consider his own family's background when ruling on all kinds of cases. If our surprisingly strident right-wing friends care to explain why this sentiment is a disqualifier for a Latina nominee, but strength for an Italian male nominee, I'd sure appreciate it.

But the attacks thus far --say far, far more about the critics than they do about her. How can her "empathy" views possibly be distinguished from what Sam Alito -- at Tom Coburn's urging -- said when he was confirmed...

Lee Ward:

They don't want to read the whole speech, or even the remarks that followed the GOPer talking point, Allen -- they know the truth almost always disproves their theories.

Instead, they level attacks on her because she's a Hispanic female -- and to anyone who whines that's not true ask yourself this -- if Sotomayor was white male and said that same remark would anyone on the right notice or care?

Of course not.

Eric:

That same question can be turned on you too Lee. If a white male had said the same thing would you notice or care? I think you would.

As Gingrich noted, if a white male had made the same comparison regardless of the context, he would be DOA.

Also, would you please quit implying racism into all Conservatives. Your blatant bigotry is and stereotyping is tiresome. Get out of your parent's basement and grow up.

Michelle:

Get the sheet off your face Lee, it's a new day. Frankly, Lee's bigotry cannot be distinguished from the bigotry of any other Grand Dragon.

Lee Ward:

Not all conservatives are racist, Eric. Many of them have denounced the racism and bigotry of Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, etc..

and many have not.

Eric:

Then stop painting all Conservatives as racist. You are every bit as bad as the people who deride by doing the same thing.

Lee Ward:

"But the moderates and level-headed thinkers that still remain are powerless to stop the racists and bigots who have taken over the GOP."

I'm referring to the figureheads mentioned in the article, and the headline for that matter.

These are the GOP figureheads who have reached their elevated status as a result of the support of the GOP base.

These statements ARE the GOP platform, and the Republicans in Congress FOLLOW the lead of the these figureheads since they speak for and are empowered by the Republican base.

Want to change the GOP? Get to work, and shout down Limbaugh the next time he declares he wants Obama's economic policies to fail. He's your damn spokesman, not mine.

Right wing mouthpieces are now using Estrada's race as a weapon - who's surprised by that? These racists cannot hide their biases.

Again, I referred to the right wing spokesman and women that the base elevates to spokesperson status, not conservatives in general

I'm sure many conservatives disagree with Limbaugh in that regard, but your silence is tacit support.

Feel free to disagree with Limbaugh anytime, Eric. Really, show us that you are different...

Eric:

By the way go back and look at some of the things said by so called Progressives about Colin Powell, Condoleeza Rice, Clarence Thomas, Michael Steele, Miguel Estrada etc. etc. and tell me where you denounced those people.

Lee Ward:

I'm a liberal and I fight for liberal causes.

And saying "he's a latino" regarding Estrada is stating a fact. Nobody, including you, has shown where Estrada's ethnicity resulted in any discrimination.

Hey, I stand by my party, not every Democrat.

If you stand by your party, fine. Rush Limbaugh speaks for the GOP, and if you spport him, fine.

Eric:

I don't disagree with what Limbaugh said about wanting Obama to fail. I disagree with Obama's policies, I don't believe they will be good for America and I don't want him to be successful in implementing them.

I believe we are heading down a very bad road with the amount of debt he has acrued in so short of a time. I am quite concerned about proposed plans such as Cap & Trade, Universal Health Care, EFCA, Chicago-style politics etc.

I am very concerned that we have a single party in absolute control of the entire government and a sympathetic media to cover it. The checks and balances that the founding fathers put into the government are barely there right now. When the Republicans controlled the Congress and the White House, I remember many media commentators talking about how there was nobody to check the power of the White House. Those same commentators are silent today.
The Democrats have Absolute Power of the government. Remember the old saying "power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely."

You can deny it, but the Democrats filibustered Miguel Estrada for two years. You can ignore reading it but a staff memo recommended blocking him BECAUSE he was Latino. How does that NOT make those Democrats as racist as the people you deride here?

See my post 16 click the links. Those comments go back for many years. When did YOU ever denounce those comments, or was YOUR silence for those many years tacit support for those comments.

Lee Ward:

"I don't disagree with what Limbaugh said about wanting Obama to fail."

No, no - he said he wants Obama's plans to fail.

That includes Obama's economic recovery plan.

YOu agree with that - and you want obama's economic recovery plan to fail also?

Wow... stunning admission, there. Don't you realize that could possibly plunge this nation into a depression?

"You can deny it, but the Democrats filibustered Miguel Estrada for two years. You can ignore reading it but a staff memo recommended blocking him BECAUSE he was Latino. How does that NOT make those Democrats as racist as the people you deride here?"

Yes, he was filibusted for two years, but not because he was a minority. Yes, a memo mentioned his race, but that isn't the reason he was ousted. The Senate confirmed the vast majority of Bush's appointees.

But by suggesting the Democrats did ti back then - that's your justification for Republican racism now?

So, you're not denying that GOP efforts are racist - your defense is that the Dems did it too?

Odd - many Senate Republicans confirmed Sotomayor, but when it comes to putting a Hsipanic woman on the Supreme court they'll balk at the very same woman?

I wasn't around when those things (in #16) were said, Eric, but you're here right now wishing Obama's economic recovery plans would fail right along with Limbaugh.

Tag, you're it. You're the one whose silence is supporting those who wish for America to fail - today - here - right now.

Eric:

And saying "he's a latino" regarding Estrada is stating a fact. Nobody, including you, has shown where Estrada's ethnicity resulted in any discrimination.

You're no serious are you? Miguel Estrada was filibustered by the Senate Democrats for TWO YEARS. He eventually withdrew because the Democrats were NEVER going to give up.

Here's the quote from the JC Staff.

"They also identified Miguel Estrada (D.C. Circuit) as especially dangerous, because he has a minimal paper trail, he is Latino, and the White House seems to be grooming him for a Supreme Court appointment. They want to hold Estrada off as long as possible."

They were not stating Estrada's race as a fact, they were stating Estrada's race in the context of REASONS to block him?

Imagine a hispanic employee is up for a promotion but doesn't get it. Later it is revealed that there was a memo created by someone in the chain of command that mentions his race in the context of reasons to block him and hold off his promotion for as long as possible. That would be an open and shut EEOC violation.

Even you are not so dense to see that Lee. Your silence will be tacit agreement of my point.


Doubting Thomas:

I've never been able to recover an overdraft charge by bouncing four more checks for the same amount, Lee.

Maybe your bank's different - but somehow I don't think so.

And Obama's writing more checks - we're well over a trillion at this point. At what point can we say "Enough already!" - or does "I won" equate to "I'll spend everything you've got times three, and you don't dare question it!"?

When Obama himself says "We're broke" - yet insists we must keep on spending MORE and MORE and MORE - you don't even QUESTION it?

Eric:

1) Limbaugh said he wants Obama's plans to fail, which is different from how Limbaugh has been painted even by you as wanting Obama to fail. I agree with Limbaugh. I think Obama's plans are bad for the country and I don't want him to succeed in passing them.

That is different from wanting the country to fail. Or wishing harm on Obama. Or wishing for a bad economy. I want Obama to prove me wrong damnit. I don't WANT to be correct. If Obama proves me wrong then the country does well and I look like a fool. I can live with that.

But what if I'm right? You can't deny that Obama has run up the deficit to historic levels, the country is on the verge of losing it's AAA credit rating as a result, and world economies are considering dropping the dollar as the base currency in favor of the Chinese Yuan. That doesn't inspire me with confidence.

2) The thing about hypocrisy is that it is a usually a two way street. The reason Republicans are bringing up Estrada is the hypocrisy of the Democrats in how they treated Estrada vs. how they are now denouncing the Republicans now. Kind of like you are doing here.

What is the definition of racism? The idea that one race is superior to another.

Sotomayor's said, "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."

Lee stop for a second. Take off your partisan glasses and read that sentence in the context of the definition of racism.

To me that sure seems like a racist remark. I have read the entire context that it was in, but at the end of the day, that statement still stands on it's own as racist to me. That is my opinion and it is based on my reading of what she said. I haven't heard or read a word about what Limbaugh has said on the subject. I don't listen to Limbaugh on a regular basis and I don't get my opinions from him.

In my opinion I think what she said is wrong. I think its wrong if a white person says it, I think its wrong if a black person says it, and I think its wrong if a hispanic person says it.

In my opinion, for someone to say that a person of one race will more often than not reach a better conclusion than a person of another race is a racist statement and should disqualify her from sitting on the Supreme Court of the United States of America.

I would feel the same way if Miguel Estrada had said the same thing. And so would you.

Eric:

By the way. Lee your silence will be tacit agreement of my point in post 22.

Sue:

"I'm a liberal and I fight for liberal causes.

And saying "he's a latino" regarding Estrada is stating a fact. Nobody, including you, has shown where Estrada's ethnicity resulted in any discrimination.

Hey, I stand by my party, not every Democrat.

If you stand by your party, fine. Rush Limbaugh speaks for the GOP, and if you spport him, fine."

What a bunch of BS. Lee, so according to you, you don't have to denounce racist remarks liberals have said about specific conservatives because you're a "liberal and you fight for liberal causes". But WE'RE supposed to denounce remarks that you consider racist, but aren't by conservatives

And YOU don't have to criticize racist remarks by liberals because you only stand by your party-not every Democrat.

And in the same paragraph you claim Limbaugh speaks for the GOP, and so to not denounce what he says is somehow bad for us. It's only delusional liberals who have decided Limbaugh "speaks for the GOP" in an effort to marginalize him and the Republicans.

What a bunch of BS!!

You know Lee-I can tell who wrote each blog article just from the little bit that is written on Wizbang. If it accuses conservatives of being racist it is always you that wrote it. Your style is snarky and only includes your pathetic opinions that are based on your own stereotypes of conservatives.

Your sole reason for writing this kind of stuff over and over again is an attempt to demean conservatives and try to rile them up. And it shows just how low you are. What you're writing is the blogs equal to the Enquirer and Star. It's tabloid stuff because you obviously can't write anything else.

Eric:

Bravo Sue!

Lee Ward:

"What a bunch of BS!!"

THAT's you rebuttal? You repeat things I wrote and just declare them BS? And THAT's your rebuttal? Good thing you aren't up for the SCOTUS.

These conservatives I write about are demeaning enough - they don't need me to drag them down.

But feel free to address Sotomayor's qualifications or lack of same anytime...

And until you do, you just keep making my point -- that the party of NO is so broken all they can do is throw rocks.

Eric:

What Sue was pointing out is that you hold yourself to a different standard. When Democrats make racist remarks, it has nothing to do with you. You have no reason to denounce them. But if Rush Limbaugh makes any statement, then any Conservative who doesn't go out of his way to denounce it automatically agrees with it.

I gave you several examples of BLATANT racism by Progessives against Conservatives and you brushed them off. I gave you the opportunity to denounce them, but you didn't. By YOUR OWN definition your silence was tacit support for those comments.

I pointed out where Senate Democrats used Miguel Estrada's race as a reason to block his nomination. You blew that off as just a fact. That is tacit approval of their statement.

I showed where Sonia Sotomayor's statement meets the definition of racism. Silence is your answer.

There is a racist here and he is you.

Lee Ward:

"When Democrats make racist remarks, it has nothing to do with you. You have no reason to denounce them."

I didn't say that - I said I support my party and don't deny or defend what some Democrat has said on 2002.

"But if Rush Limbaugh makes any statement, then any Conservative who doesn't go out of his way to denounce it automatically agrees with it."

You have a chance to denounce it right here, right now, and you're choosing not to.

I stand by my actions, and trust you stand by yours.

"I gave you several examples of BLATANT racism by Progessives against Conservatives and you brushed them off."

No, I pointed out that you declaring its ok for Conservatives to be racist by stating "Well Dems were racist" is no defense for you actions, or in this case, inaction.

The difference is here and now, versus there and then.

Conservatives like you loved to bring up something Jimmy Carter did in defense of things George Bush did.

It doesn't work. It may calm your guilt, but it just doesn't excuse what's happening here and now.

Right here, right now - you do nothing. That speaks volumes. When presented with an opportunity to denounce something a Dem says (present tense) I will.

You won't do the same.

drlava:

It's pretty pointless to argue with these people Lee. Your initial point is correct and understood.

I don't exactly know what is up with some of these "conservatives" psychologically but logical thinking and the ability to detect bullshit seems totally missing from their minds.

They aren't even amusing to read anymore just sad and pathetic like a circle jerk at a nursing home.

Mycroft:

>>"She rules on emotions, rather then law, which is exactly what is not supposed to be done at the US Supreme Court."

>Evidence to support your opinion that she's a bad jurist will go along ways to dispel the perception that you're just another loud mouth, racist, Mycroft -- but perhaps there's a good reason you left the evidence out -- you don't have any.

Sorry, I didn't get back to you earlier, because I was working hard keeping my company in business. You know, being on-call to handle problems and such. You do have a job don't you?

An "obvious example demonstrating that she might have a problem with racial bias is the New Haven firefighter case, Ricci v. DeStefano, in she and the other panel members tried to sweep their support of the city's discriminatory acts under the rug. They failed and the Supreme Court will be issuing a decision by the end of the term."

This is the tip of the iceberg, but I have been reading more about her not doing a thourough job of writingup her decisions, and of other decisions that seem to contradict the law - and some that have already been overturned by the supreme court.

My statement was mostly a call for a thurough investigation into quality of work, sinc esome obvious examples of shoddy work have surfaced already. Work that certainly seems to fit the bill of "racist".

I am of the opinion that a supreme court judge should be above the level of all of his or her peers in ability. This judge has not demonstrated that yet, while the last 2 did.

As for your call that I am a racist, you don't know, you have no evidence, and yet you call the messagener names. Hm, seems you are the one lacking evidence there Lee. I won't spend my time trying to refute your silly statement, other then to say "Thanks for the laugh about that" for calling me a racist.

drlava:

Mycroft,

I understand that you are trying to string words together that you ultimately hope will have meaning to the reader.

Could you type a few more in a different order and I will see if they make any sense.

Doubting Thomas:

Lava -

You've started taking ESL courses? Good on you, mate - let us know if they work.

Eric:

Lee, As I said I don't know what Limbaugh said, I don't care what Limbaugh said. Limbaugh is his own person and does not represent me in any way. So I have no obligation to denounce anything he said. That doesn't mean that I automatically agree with what he said.

Whatever Limbaugh has said doesn't change what Sonia Sotomayor said.

Sonia Sotomayor has been nominated to the United States Supreme Court. I believe her 2001 statement is racist. In my opinion that should disqualify her from the USSC.

You have yet to respond to that specific charge and refute why that particular statement is not racist. Therefore, in my opinion you are the one defending a racist.

Lee Ward:

I've got an upcoming post on Sotomayor's remarks in 2001. It's a subject worthy of much more than a comment aimed at a conservative airhead.

You'll want to read it, Eric. It has context and the full meaning of what she said.


Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Advertisments

Categories

Archives

Technorati



Add to Technorati Favorites

Credits

Publisher: Kevin Aylward

Editors: Lee Ward, Larkin, Paul S Hooson, and Steve Crickmore

All original content copyright © 2007 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark. Wizbang Blue™ is a trademark of Wizbang®, LLC.

Powered by Movable Type 3.35

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.